MARK A.I. writes:

With regard to your thought-provoking observation about Covid’s apparent respect for billionaire longevity, from a Forbes article on billionaire deaths in 2020, we have this: “In a year that will likely be remembered around the world for the devastation and loss of life caused by the coronavirus pandemic, 17 billionaires passed away in 2o20–but, as best as we can tell, none did so after contracting Covid-19. That compares to 23 billionaires who died in 2019.”

Then in 2021, Forbes tells us 27 billionaires shuffled off their mortal coils. Again, apparently not a single one from Covid.

In September 2020, Forbes also informed us, in an article helpfully entitled “What are your chances of dying from Covid,” in the global population of men over 60, there were about 12 Covid deaths for every 100 non-Covid deaths. Scanning through the 44 billionaire deaths, I didn’t see any women or anyone under 60 on the list (and, in fact, the average billionaire’s age of death was easily over 80), so taking the expected ratio of Covid deaths vs non-covid deaths to be 12:100 (and that’s conservative, since we’re told there were many more Covid deaths after Sept 2020 than before, on account of the “second wave” last winter and then the Delta sequel), we can assess the likelihood of the event “0 billionaire Covid deaths out of 44” to have occurred by chance, using Fisher’s exact test.

P-value = 0.02, statistically significant.

Laura writes:

Thank you for the interesting details.

I didn’t know there were so many billionaires! Covid believers, of course, would attribute their amazing immunity to things like more expensive masks.

By the way, “Covid” also discriminates against the super poor.

To this day, there has been (fortunately) no great die-off of the country’s 1.4 million homeless people, who continue to be notorious for not following anti-social distancing guidelines. In a real pandemic, there would be thousands of bodies in the streets.

The “fact-checkers” dismiss this anomaly by simply saying that many of the homeless have “tested positive.“

— End of Initial Entry —

Laura writes:

How many billionaires are there anyway?

Mark A.I. responds:

If Forbes can be trusted, which, as the go-to source for any information about our illustrious billionaire class (that doesn’t put them in a bad light, of course), I think it can, then their global number is about 2750. Although, seeing the remarkable consensus characterizing this group of maverick thinkers-outside-the-box and go-getters when it comes to nation-wrecking and anti-Christian positions, I suspect these men function as mere interns to a (less public and far less numerous) trillionaire class, whose (no doubt altruistic) desire to remain hidden Forbes would not dare defy.

Had I known you would make a separate post of my insomniac musings I would have written it better, including offering various possible explanations for the unlikelihood of their resistance to Covid being due to chance, and alternative statistical methods to validate my rejection of the null hypothesis. But, then, I think we’re way beyond the point where statistical analyses are necessary to direct us to what’s going on.

On that note, Dennis Dale had a good comment on Steve Sailer’s blog (contra the curiously credulous proprietor’s reliance on the integrity of “official data”): “As for all the good, smart people getting played, I think the lesson learned for future societal manipulation is: Get Them Chasing Data. They’ll be like golden retrievers playing fetch, and just as harmless.”

Noting that these smug “datanauts” think of themselves as modern-day Sherlock Holmes, whose vanity and escape instinct to the comfortable world of calculations the Operation Covid engineers co-opt in much the same way as they exploit the vanity and intellectual laziness of the typical MD in following regime-sanctioned “science,” I offered a satirical dialogue, which though possibly unsuitable for your wholesome blog, you may nonetheless appreciate in private:

SHERLOCK HOLMES: [rubbing the cocaine off his nose] Watson, take your coat off, the picture is less clear than I thought. After correcting this new time series for autocorrelation, it turns out that no crime need have been committed, all can still legitimately be regarded as coincidence.

WATSON: Is this the dataset you found stuck to your shoe during your stroll past Eckstein’s quarters, Holmes?

SHERLOCK HOLMES: The same.

WATSON: [stops scrolling distractedly through a spreadsheet] I presume it has not escaped your notice, then, that this corroborates the data (after imputation for missing values) we reconstructed from the torn papers in Toby’s stool?

SHERLOCK HOLMES: Just so.

Laura writes:

Thank you for putting things in perspective. : – ) That’s hilarious. I don’t think readers will mind.

The data is more psychopathic manipulation.

Imagine the government telling people that the stars in the sky are actually spaceships from other planets and they are kidnapping 40,000 people a day.

Instead of challenging the whole idea that the stars are spaceships, the datanauts, after reducing themselves to human jello from pouring over figures for hours, would say, “The government is lying! The numbers are wrong. They are only kidnapping 20,000 a day!”

Please follow and like us: